Rand Paul and our Receding Cynicism

I’m a bit tired this morning after watching about 10 hours of Senator Rand Paul’s epic filibuster yesterday. It was “only” 13 hours long, but it was also the only filibuster I can think of that stuck to a narrow policy focus the entire time — no discursions or tangents and no reading from a phone book.

There was much discussion about the benefits and downsides of drone warfare, but Paul was laser-focused on the problem being that the Administration …

I loved it. Watching was like sitting in front of a game in overtime; so tired but couldn’t pull away from the TV. Paul scored big.

An honest question, though, Mollie – what about Paul’s vote for Hagel? Plenty of people around here thought he was being disingenuous for approving Hagel but filibustering Brennan. Was it a matter of allowing the president to have the cabinet he wants? Why not abstain, as some suggested? It’s not a loaded question, I really don’t know enough to have an answer; I’m curious how you would explain it.

BTW, I saw at Politico that the people who hate Rand Paul & Republicans really only have three things to say about them.

One is “Queen”.

(Another is “moron”, which is a word for, well, Morons who lack the imagination to come up with other, more eloquent terms for people who lack intelligence or fail to apply it – “dullard”, for instance.)

Being a New Yorker, I know one particular meaning for “Queen”. And although I find the lifestyle strange and do not endorse it, I think that Liberals should think about how much hard work this particular Queen has put into looking better than many women do.

I know this because I worked with an Army Staff Sergeant who went to a bar and was very impressed with how well put together a cross-dresser there was. Perhaps this is because Ru Paul did not start out with the natural advantage of being a woman. In the same way, people with flawed voices often sing better than people born with with perfect pitch.

At any rate, I do wish Liberals thought more about their insults. Their choices reflect poorly on the characters and their intellects.

From about 1:00 pm yesterday afternoon, I was watching. I streamed it live while I worked, then drove home and turned it on there. Had to pause a bit while I took the kids to church, then came home and watched again until Rand Paul finally gave in to the urging of his bladder.

It was fantastic. I’m glad I was there. And yes, I allowed myself to hope.

DrewInWisconsin: From about 1:00 pm yesterday afternoon, I was watching. I streamed it live while I worked, then drove home and turned it on there. Had to pause a bit while I took the kids to church, then came home and watched again until Rand Paul finally gave in to the urging of his bladder.

It was fantastic. I’m glad I was there. And yes, I allowed myself to hope.

I came away very impressed with Ted Cruz, too.

Paul/Cruz, 2016! · 2 minutes ago

Cruz is a naturalized citizen and can’t run for any higher office, I think that’s why he’s fearless in the senate. Try Paul/Ayotte as a great alternative. Cruz should stay right where he is and run the senate when the Republican’s are in the majority.

But whose fault is that? Obama & Company will not treat with “dross” like Rand Paul. So a Filibuster over a straw man it is.

It is not for Rand Paul to clarify for Barack Obama that he his not an Emperor. It is for the American people, half of whom were too cynical to vote in 2012, to do so.

You fight the fight using the tactics and tools that are at hand and make sense. So long as you fight.

Imagine a warrior with the best of weapons encountering an opponent with no training defending his family with only a 2′X4′. If that warrior has any sense of dignity, he will yield. He is trained and equipped. His opponent has only his heart and what was at hand. Who is the better warrior at that moment.

Isn’t that self-refuting? If Big Media obscure, ignore, and/or misreport it (as I’ve seen already), then something “big” happened only in the abstract, not in reality or in practical terms, because it will be lost on most of the American people.

Isn’t that self-refuting? If Big Media obscure, ignore, and/or misreport it (as I’ve seen already), then something “big” happened only in the abstract, not in reality or in practical terms, because it will be lost on most of the American people.

Well, I think the big problem is that many folks have been despairing. That despair is related to everything from the lack of principled leadership to the media partisanship. So even if the big media ignores what happened yesterday, we didn’t — we saw and heard and share through the myriad other outlets.

Isn’t that self-refuting? If Big Media obscure, ignore, and/or misreport it (as I’ve seen already), then something “big” happened only in the abstract, not in reality or in practical terms, because it will be lost on most of the American people.

Well, I think the big problem is that many folks have been despairing. That despair is related to everything from the lack of principled leadership to the media partisanship. So even if the big media ignores what happened yesterday, we didn’t — we saw and heard and share through the myriad other outlets. · 0 minutes ago

Agree wholeheartedly. What I meant was, it’ll be lost on the low-information voter (which is a majority, I think) because the media won’t report it properly. So while it was a great event, a momentous event for us, I think it’ll be little more than an American footnote in the long run.

I reject the premise of many commenters that this was ignored by the MSM. I saw a number of reports in the MSM acknowledging the filibuster, largely because it was a real filibuster that could be constrated with faux filibusters. Holding the floor shows conviction in a way that cannot be easily dismissed.

Also, this filibuster seems like it was well orchestrated by Paul and company. Could we have a few senators who have a clue?

Edited to rework unclear first sentence, which made it appear Mollie said MSM was ignoring the story.

The biggest error is to assume anyone saw the filibuster. We saw it so now it’s our job to tell everyone else about it. We already know we can’t count on anyone else to tell the story – the ground game never ends.

Eric Wallace: The biggest error is to assume anyone saw the filibuster. We saw it so now it’s our job to tell everyone else about it. We already know we can’t count on anyone else to tell the story – the ground game never ends. · 2 minutes ago

The crews at Commentary and Powerline obviously didn’t see it, because they are yammering on about how Paul is so ideologically opposed to drones that he won’t concede the federal government should be able to use them to counter an imminent threat. I lost count of the number of times that Paul stated that he did not dispute this. Sadly, Jonathan Tobin, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff, and John Hinderaker are missing the point.

An honest question, though, Mollie – what about Paul’s vote for Hagel? Plenty of people around here thought he was being disingenuous for approving Hagel but filibustering Brennan. Was it a matter of allowing the president to have the cabinet he wants? Why not abstain, as some suggested? It’s not a loaded question, I really don’t know enough to have an answer; I’m curious how you would explain it. · 1 hour ago

It’s my opinion that Paul voted for Hagel precisely so that he could filibuster and say, “this is not a partisan issue. I voted for the president’s nominees. This is about principle. I would be here regardless of whether the president was a Democrat or a Republican.”

An honest question, though, Mollie – what about Paul’s vote for Hagel? Plenty of people around here thought he was being disingenuous for approving Hagel but filibustering Brennan. Was it a matter of allowing the president to have the cabinet he wants? Why not abstain, as some suggested? It’s not a loaded question, I really don’t know enough to have an answer; I’m curious how you would explain it. · 1 hour ago

It’s a fine question but I’m not the person to answer it.

I had no problem with Paul’s vote for Hagel. I liked that he voted against cloture in an attempt to get more answers from the administration but I don’t have the problem with Hagel that many here do.

Some would say, though, that senators should vote to approve nominations except under extreme circumstances.